*Manna Alexander
Maryland, along with many other states, has a statute that criminalizes “disruptive behavior” in schools.[1] Qualifying behaviors can range from assault to a verbal disagreement with another student, roaming the halls, or anything the school deems “disruptive.”[2] Due to the existing statute’s overly broad nature, legislators, attorneys, and other concerned parties have proposed and rallied behind House Bill 615 in an effort to mitigate the criminalization of youth behaviors in schools.[3]
I. What Is Maryland Statute §26-101 and How Has It Been Applied?
Maryland statute §26-101 states “[a] person may not willfully disturb or otherwise willfully prevent the orderly conduct of the activities, administration, or classes of any institution of elementary, secondary, or higher education.”[4] Under the statute, a student can face charges of disrupting school operations if their behavior is considered to disturb or prevent any part of school operations.[5] A wide range of behaviors and conduct can fall under the broad terms of ‘disturbing’ and ‘preventing,’ including “a temper tantrum, cursing, or talking back to a teacher.”[6] The Maryland Commission on the School-to-Prison Pipeline and Restorative Practices’ December 2018 report shows that students are developing “arrest records for acting like children.”[7]
In 2023, there were 858 referrals made for “disrupting school operations.” [8] Black students received over 80% of those referrals.[9] Black female students were more often referred to as a “harm,” “disruption,” and “threat” in comparison to the other students referred under this crime. [10] Furthermore, Black students were 5.5 times more likely to be referred for “disrupting school operations” than white students in 2023.[11]
The Maryland Office of the Public Defender (OPD), the Maryland Coalition to Reform Discipline (Coalition), and other parties including many parents, are concerned § 26-101 has been applied unfairly to students in Maryland and call for a change through House Bill 615. [12] They hope that House Bill 615 will work to stop criminalizing students for school disruption.[13]
II. What Is House Bill 615?
House Bill 615 proposes that students should not be charged under §26-101 if they are students at the school where the disruption occurred or if they commit acts on another school’s property while participating in extracurricular activities or a sporting event.[14] The argument for the bill rests on the contentions that §26-101 is unnecessary,[15] too vague,[16] and criminalizes typical adolescent behavior.[17]
First, those favoring House Bill 615 argue that § 26-101 is unnecessary because there are already criminal codes that punish students for improper behavior.[18] The Coalition argues students are charged with “disrupting school operations” as a mere secondary charge that only serves to subject students to harsher punishment.[19]
Another argument claims the statute is too vague, and the implementation of §26-101 is problematic.[20] Students with disabilities and Black students are disproportionately criminalized through the statue.[21] Due to §26-101’s broad nature, school administration and faculty have the power to determine whether behavior is “disruptive,” and the subjective nature of discerning disruption leads to the problematic implementation of the statute.[22]
OPD further argues schools have disciplinary procedures and other resources they can use to discipline students rather than using the juvenile criminal justice system.[23] OPD argues that assessing and implementing a behavior plan for students who need behavioral support, or implementing an accommodation plan for students with disabilities, such as an IEP or 504 plan,[24] are far better approaches to disciplining student conduct than resorting to law enforcement.[25]
III. Conclusion
Unfortunately, House Bill 615 did not pass once it reached the second chamber of the Maryland General Assembly.[26] Opponents of House Bill 615 argued the statute provides an important tool for law enforcement and keeps students accountable for their actions.[27] One sheriff argued House Bill 615 undermined the ability of law enforcement to properly keep schools and communities safe.[28] House Bill 615 is the third failed attempt to end the criminalization of youth behavior in Maryland schools.[29]
Students continue to face the threat of criminal charges for “disruptive behaviors,” an inadequately defined term.[30] The vagueness of “disruptive behaviors”[31] leads to questions of whether, after many failed attempts, the bill’s proponents will present another iteration of House Bill 615 to the Maryland General Assembly for the 447th session.[32]
Photo Credit: Adapted from Steven Depolo, CC 2.0 License / Via Flickr
*Manna Alexander is a second-year student at the University of Baltimore School of Law. In September 2024, she was inducted into the Royal Graham Shannonhouse III Honor Society. While pursuing her undergraduate degree in Legal Studies at the University of Central Florida, Manna worked as a tutor for Orange County Public Schools and developed an interest in education law. She enjoys serving as a Law Review staff editor, and in her free time, she likes volunteering at her church and baking for her friends.
[1] Shanon Taylor, School Disturbance Laws: What They Are, How They Are Used, and How They Impact Students, Sage Open, 1, 7 (2024) (listing Maryland as one of the many states that have “broad and vaguely defined school disturbance laws”).
[2] Memorandum from Maryland Coalition to Reform School Discipline to the Maryland General Assembly 1 (Feb. 14, 2024), https://assets.nationbuilder.com/lwvmaryland/pages/166/attachments/original/1715103659/HOUSE_BILL_615.pdf?1715103659. [hereinafter Coalition Memorandum].
[3] See Coalition Memorandum, supra note 2, at 2; Memorandum from Maryland Office of the Public Defender to Maryland General Assembly 7 (Feb. 14, 2024), https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/cmte_testimony/2024/wam/1sqAWgCCgNMDYZ7E0dp2gHY_9Uj32FQAO.pdf [hereinafter OPD Memorandum]; H.B. 615, 446th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Md. 2024).
[4] Md. Code Ann. Educ., § 26-101 (West 2022).
[5] See OPD Memorandum, supra note 3, at 2; Coalition Memorandum, supra note 2, at 1.
[6] Maryland Commission on the School-to-Prison Pipeline and Restorative Practices, Final Report and Collaborative Action Plan 26 (Dec. 20, 2018), https://marylandpublicschools.org/stateboard/Documents/AAEEBB/CommissionSchoolPrisonPipeline.pdf.
[7] Id.
[8] Maryland Department of Juvenile Services, Data Resource Guide Fiscal Year 2023 235 (Dec. 2023), https://djs.maryland.gov/Documents/DRG/Data_Resource_Guide_FY2023.pdf.
[9] Id.
[10] Coalition Memorandum, supra note 2, at 2.
[11] Id.
[12] Coalition Memorandum, supra note 2, at 1; OPD Memorandum, supra note 3, at 1.
[13] Id.
[14] Md. H.B. 615, 2024, 446th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Md. 2024).
[15] Coalition Memorandum, supra note 2, at 2.
[16] OPD Memorandum, supra note 3, at 7.
[17] Id.
[18] Id.
[19] Coalition Memorandum, supra note 2, at 2 (explaining that § 26-101(a) is a “‘kitchen sink’ charge” that is secondary to the primary charge placed against the student).
[20] OPD Memorandum, supra note 3, at 3–8.
[21] OPD Memorandum, supra note 3, at 6 (showing that in 2021, students with disabilities accounted for 28.2% of the school-based arrests and 61% of student arrests in schools were Black students).
[22] Coalition Memorandum, supra note 2, at 1.
[23] OPD Memorandum, supra note 3, at 6–7.
[24] See Maryland State Dep’t of Educ., School Discipline Basics & Integrating Supports: A Focus on Students with Disabilities (Nov. 2020), https://marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Documents/Special-Ed/MITP/about/SchoolDisciplineBasics.pdf (explaining that students with disabilities are required to receive free and appropriate public education (FAPE) which can be achieved through implementing individualized education programs (IEPs) and Section 504 plans that provide behavioral supports and accommodations to students).
[25] Id. (explaining that school administration can “refer students to student support team to identify additional supports” including an evaluation “using a functional behavior assessment and a behavior plan” when the student presents behavior challenges).
[26] H.B. 615, 2024, 446th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Md. 2024).
[27] See Gary Collins & Jeff Abell, Backlash Grows Against Maryland School Penalty Reduction Bill: ‘Misguided Mindset’, Fox News (Feb. 16, 2024, 9:45 a.m.), https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/backlash-grows-against-maryland-school-penalty-reduction-bill-misguided-mindset-clyde-boatwright-jamie-dykes-ron-watson-general-assembly-education-crisis-in-the-classroom.
[28] Hunter Landon, Maryland Legislation Would Prevent Students Being Charged with Disruptive Behavior in School, WBOC (Feb. 20, 2024), https://www.wboc.com/news/maryland-legislation-would-prevent-students-being-charged-with-disruptive-behavior-in-school/article_913cfd8a-d03e-11ee-900b-b7551a8eb34d.html (stating Sheriff Mike Lewis’ concern that House Bill 615 would “remove critical consequences for misbehavior and undermine law enforcement’s ability to maintain order in schools”).
[29] House Bill 0119 and House Bill 1114 were previous attempts of the Maryland General Assembly to stop criminalizing students for youth behavior. See H.B. 1114, 2023, 445th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Md. 2023); H.B. 0119, 2022, 444th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Md. 2022).
[30] See supra Section I.
[31] See supra notes 19–21 and accompanying text.
[32] See supra note 29 and accompanying text; A pre-filed bill relating to this topic for the current General Assembly has not been filed. See Legislation, Maryland General Assembly (01/18/2025, 12:04 AM), https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Index/house.
University of Baltimore Law Review 